Convince me! 70-300mm

[hamlet]

My *next* lens purchase is probably going to be the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8--I've heard really great things about it, and it's WAY less than the Nikon equivalent.

I've' not done too much exploring into their differences. Where i live there is a 1000USD difference between these lenses.

 

[robbins.photo]

In general I wouldn't be opposed to getting a Sigma or Tamron lens, however if I were to go that route I'd prefer to buy new as opposed to used and make sure I was buying something with a full warranty. As someone else previously mentioned there have been instances where Sigma or Tamron's quality control was not quite as good as it should have been so as a result I really wouldn' t roll the dice on a used one.

 

[RichieT]

In general I wouldn't be opposed to getting a Sigma or Tamron lens, however if I were to go that route I'd prefer to buy new as opposed to used and make sure I was buying something with a full warranty. As someone else previously mentioned there have been instances where Sigma or Tamron's quality control was not quite as good as it should have been so as a result I really wouldn' t roll the dice on a used one.

My Sigma 70 -200 (older non OS version) had a front focus problem that I found out later was fairly common. It was easily corrected by Sigma, but still a bit disappointing. I have the 17-50 2.8 Sigma which is tack sharp and my favorite lens on the D300. I agree with buying new though.

 

[raventepes]

The Nikon 70-300 is one of my most used lenses. I actually need to invest in either another one, or preferably, the 80-400 (if finances will allow) because my fiance keeps stealing it from me. It's sharp enough for most work, but to use Hamlet's guide:

Things to consider (in so specific order):
1. quality of the glass - Outstanding, especially given its price point. This thing is like "The Little Engine That Could". It generally focuses fast and accurate.

2. durability of the lens - I've dropped mine quite a few times. It's built like a tank, without the weight.

3. How big of an aperture you need - This is where things get tricky. It's not an f/2.8 or even an f/4, but since I rarely shoot wide open with it, I don't have much need for it to be fast, yet I can coax some decent isolation and depth of field out of it, when needed. Typically, I shoot between f/8 and f/16.

4. what you will be using it for - This one's personal. I use mine for just about everything, including weddings. It has yet to fail me.

 

[robbins.photo]

The Nikon 70-300 is one of my most used lenses. I actually need to invest in either another one, or preferably, the 80-400 (if finances will allow) because my fiance keeps stealing it from me. It's sharp enough for most work, but to use Hamlet's guide:

Things to consider (in so specific order):
1. quality of the glass - Outstanding, especially given its price point. This thing is like "The Little Engine That Could". It generally focuses fast and accurate.

2. durability of the lens - I've dropped mine quite a few times. It's built like a tank, without the weight.

3. How big of an aperture you need - This is where things get tricky. It's not an f/2.8 or even an f/4, but since I rarely shoot wide open with it, I don't have much need for it to be fast, yet I can coax some decent isolation and depth of field out of it, when needed. Typically, I shoot between f/8 and f/16.

4. what you will be using it for - This one's personal. I use mine for just about everything, including weddings. It has yet to fail me.

Well eventually I'd like to add a lens or two to my own repertoire, maybe a 200 mm 2.8 and maybe a 400 or 500 mm depending on what my budget can stand at the time, but even if I do I know I'll be keeping my Nikon 70-300 mm lens. Dang thing is just way too much of a workhorse to get rid of, and it just produces high quality pictures every time.

 

[DGMPhotography]

You guys are starting to convince me...

 

[Braineack]

You guys are starting to convince me...

buy it used for ~$300, if you dont like it, you can get your money back.

 

[manicmike]

Probably the most used lens in my bag.

 

[Derrel]

Here's a gallery shot entirely with the 70-300 VR-G, on the outdated 12 megapixel, Nikon D2x, shot under some of the most dull, flat, overcast lighting you can imagine. These were shot May 26,2012 at the Oregon Coast. The light was flaaaaaaaaat, which tend to make apparent sharpness in a lens seem lower than if the lens is shot under high-contrast, bright, summertime conditions. Take a look...these photos are fairly big, and show you the way the lens "draws". Beach May 26, 2012 by Derrel Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

 

[CaptainNapalm]

I have it and like it. There is nothing bad to say about this lens. Image quality is excellent, build quality is good, no issues with focusing,
Great all around lens especially for the money.

 

[coastalconn]

Oh I hate to be "that guy" I am the 1 out of ten. I have tried two copies of the 70-300 VR. Both are owned by friends of mine and frankly I thought they were just OK. I guess if you find a used one cheap enough it will work. I thought the AF was a bit flaky on my D300, and my friends D7000 and my other friends D600. Both copies I tried were soft at 300. I used to have a Tamron 70-300 VC that I sold to a friend and I personally thought that was a better lens, the AF was a touch slower but it tracked better and was sharper at 300 wide open.. Of course just my humble opinion...

 

[480sparky]

Just about every lens of this class is 'soft' at the tele end. So there's nothing new under the sun here.

Yes, there are sharper lenses, but not at the same price point. I got the 70-200 VRII, but I'm keeping the 70-300 for it's size & weight when IQ isn't an issue.

 

[robbins.photo]

Oh I hate to be "that guy" I am the 1 out of ten. I have tried two copies of the 70-300 VR. Both are owned by friends of mine and frankly I thought they were just OK. I guess if you find a used one cheap enough it will work. I thought the AF was a bit flaky on my D300, and my friends D7000 and my other friends D600. Both copies I tried were soft at 300. I used to have a Tamron 70-300 VC that I sold to a friend and I personally thought that was a better lens, the AF was a touch slower but it tracked better and was sharper at 300 wide open.. Of course just my humble opinion...

See that's weird, because I also tried the Tamron 300 mm and the IQ was much, much better on the Nikon. I wonder if maybe it's something to do with the individual lenses in question? Maybe something wrong with the Nikon you used, or maybe something about the Tamron I tested?

 

[hamlet]

Just about every lens of this class is 'soft' at the tele end. So there's nothing new under the sun here.

Yes, there are sharper lenses, but not at the same price point. I got the 70-200 VRII, but I'm keeping the 70-300 for it's size & weight when IQ isn't an issue.

Why not just use an iphone?

 

[DGMPhotography]

Just about every lens of this class is 'soft' at the tele end. So there's nothing new under the sun here.

Yes, there are sharper lenses, but not at the same price point. I got the 70-200 VRII, but I'm keeping the 70-300 for it's size & weight when IQ isn't an issue.

Why not just use an iphone?

Gahhhh :meh:

I know you're kidding, but that's just painful to read.